This blog is a commentary on contemporary business, politics, economics, society, and culture, based on the values of Reason, Rational Self-Interest, and Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Its intellectual foundations are Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and the theory of the Austrian and British Classical schools of economics as expressed in the writings of Mises, Böhm-Bawerk, Menger, Ricardo, Smith, James and John Stuart Mill, Bastiat, and Hazlitt, and in my own writings.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Some Answers to Global Warming Propaganda: Reisman's Comments on NY Times Article "Political Rifts Slow U.S. Effort on Climate Laws"

On April 15, the National (print)
edition of The New York Times
published an article titled "Political Rifts Slow U.S.
Effort on Climate Laws." The article was inspired by the latest report
of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and
naively and uncritically accepted the findings of that report as true.

Because The Times limits comments
to 1500 characters, including spaces between words, I had to submit two,
separate comments. And even then, I could not include some essential
points, though I've included them here, following the end of my first
comment.

The comments can be found on The Times'
website, be clicking the respective links that follow the headings
"Comment 1" and "Comment 2."

It's
remarkable that the author of this article, and the authors of the IPCC report
that inspired it, can be concerned about the destructive effects on food
production and other essentials of human well-being that will allegedly result
from global warming, but do not give the slightest thought to the destructive
effects on human well-being of forcibly imposing drastic reductions in CO2
emissions. These emissions are a by-product of such things as the use of
tractors and harvesters in food production and of refrigerators and freezers in
food preservation. They are the result of people driving automobiles, lighting,
heating, and air conditioning their homes, and using electricity to power their
machinery and appliances. In short, CO2 emissions are a by-product of producing
and enjoying the material goods that distinguish a modern standard of living
from that of the Third World.

Preventing
government imposed reductions in the use of fossil fuels is not something that
is merely in the narrow self-interest of the oil and coal industries. Rather it
is in the self-interest of the hundreds of millions of average people who
vitally depend on the products of these industries.

Perhaps
there will someday be economical substitutes for fossil fuels. Until then,
substantially reducing the use of fossil fuels means imposing the certainty of a drastic decline in the
standard of living of the average person in order to avoid what is at most the
possibility of some seriously bad weather.

[The following two paragraphs were not
included in my Times comment because of lack of space, i.e., they would have
exceeded the 1500 character limit.]

And
if we need such things as massive sea walls to avoid such effects of that bad
weather as the flooding of coastal areas, we had better be sure that we have
the largest possible modern industrial base available to construct them.

It’s
equally remarkable that those who fear global warming have given virtually no
consideration to non-destructive ways of dealing with it, assuming that the
threat is real in the first place. Why aren’t major prizes being offered for
the development of low-cost, effective methods of removing large quantities of
CO2 from the atmosphere? For example, is it beyond us to develop plant species
that will absorb vast multiples of the CO2 that plants normally absorb? Why is
the only possible solution thought to be the destruction of modern economic life?

If
global warming is a real threat, why haven’t politicians the world over made
the negotiation of treaties for free immigration a top priority? If it’s a
serious threat, and people will not willingly deal with it by committing
economic suicide in the form of depriving themselves of the massive amounts of
energy that would be lost through such measures as imposing a 70 percent
reduction in CO2 emissions, then preparations should be starting now to allow for
the future migration of hundreds of millions of Indians and Chinese into what
will then be an inhabitable Siberia. The United States, Mexico, and the
countries of Central America, should likewise be negotiating for free
immigration into what will then be an inhabitable central Canada. Greenland
should be declared open to all comers. Whatever the problems it may cause, global
warming, if it really comes, will also be accompanied by vast new economic
opportunities if not blocked by government migration barriers.

Or
are we to fear that the “sin” of enjoying a modern standard of living must end
in nothing less than a version of hellfire and brimstone—in the form of the
recreation on Earth of the climate conditions on the planet Venus?

If
so, what is the proof? Is it the direct observation of another planet Earth
that turned into a Venus? Or is it strings of assumptions and inferences? And
how can the Earth have had ice ages accompanied by more than10 times the CO2
that it is supposedly on track to experience now?